I've read before that between 1968 (when Rindt was at Brabham) and 1969 (Lotus), Rindt agonized over what to do. While he felt safe with Brabham's cars, the fragile Lotus looked like the winning car. His F2 team manager at the time, Bernie Eccelstone, told Rindt the following...

After the unsuccesful 1968 season Rindt had to chose between Brabham and Lotus - his F2 team manager, Bernie Ecclestone, said, that if he wanted to become champion, he should go to Lotus, but if staying alive was his main priority, Brabham would be the right choice. Rindt made it known that if Jack Brabham could match 75 percent of the wage offered by Colin Chapman, Rindt would go stay at Brabham, but Black Jack didn't have the cash, so Rindt signed for Lotus - and full-filled the prophecies of Bernie E.

No, I don't think Chapman would ever ask a driver to crash. But I wonder if Briatore really asked Piquet to crash his car the way he did. His comments at the time ('what an idiot!') were either galleryplay to cover the fix, or... he and Symmonds expected Piquet to lightly spin and tap the barrier... not almost put his car in half.

But Chapman making a second or third driver 'blow' his engine at a convenient spot? Why not?

He did anyway, alot of the cars were pretty lethal to the drivers!!!!!

Whereas when Piquet spun himself into the wall he could be pretty sure he would walk away unharmed due to the rigorous side impact test that all current F1 cars have to pass. In spite of what all the papers and the FIA said I doubt that there was any chance of harm coming to any official or spectator.

I disagree. Chapman would have been disgusted by the amateurism of 'management' by this italian as well as the risking and damaging the names of Renault and their sponsors. Indeed he was the man of finding a gap in the rules somewhere. But always within certain barriers of fairness.
Hazel Chapman once said, when asked what ACBC would have said about Lotus in F1 in 1988, that he would have been suprised they were still in F1. Of course meaning that ACBC possibly thought himself indispensable for Lotus to be F1, but also I guess he would have been too competitive to stay in F1 and possibly would have moved to other areas: Le Mans, Racing planes or other possible areas with more engineering challenges.

Different eras, completely different... From everything I've read, Chapman certainly "pushed the envelope", but back then, death and destruction was always a very real threat. Fast-forward to today, and F1 has become so "safe" that something like Singapore could be a real possibility.

I disagree. Chapman would have been disgusted by the amateurism of 'management' by this italian as well as the risking and damaging the names of Renault and their sponsors. Indeed he was the man of finding a gap in the rules somewhere. But always within certain barriers of fairness.

Colin Chapman was not a cheat, he may have gone off the rails slightly in later life, but he raced to win, if he hadn't beaten his opposition fair and square within the rules, it wouldn't have meant a thing to him. As far as I can remember, the only proven (and he admitted it) instance of a minor Chapman cheat involved officialdom at Le Mans, who many at the time would have regarded as fair game.

The earlier comment pasted below is unworthy of TNF.

"It's kind of a shame that Chapman is known for building fast "unreliable" cars. Not fast, unsafe death-traps."

Going back to the Briatore business, what about this mysterious and so far unnamed 'Witness X', supposedly unearthed by Renault, who turned up at the FIA hearing to corroborate all that Nelson Junior said? What's the betting that he's going to wake up one morning to find that he's sharing his bed with a horse's head?

Going back to the Briatore business, what about this mysterious and so far unnamed 'Witness X', supposedly unearthed by Renault, who turned up at the FIA hearing to corroborate all that Nelson Junior said? What's the betting that he's going to wake up one morning to find that he's sharing his bed with a horse's head?

I've wondered that too. Somehow, I have a funny feeling we haven't quite heard the end of this...

Some years ago, when Barrichello had the Austrian GP won, only to back off - as ordered - just before the finish line to permit his Ferrari team-mate Schumacher (M) to finish first, my lifelong interest in major-league motor racing was irretrievably holed beneath the waterline.

A number of respected former Champions and former title contenders told me independent of one another that they felt almost soiled by that episode.

"It demeans us all" was the best quote, reflecting the feelings of many.

For me, sadly, Formula 1 has become a far away colony inhabited by many fantastically capable and impressive people, but in many areas plainly capped by utter ****.

This most recent episode sullies all of us who have been entranced by motor sport since we could walk, and talk, and think.

Telling any non-enthusiast today that you are a Formula 1 enthusiast seems akin to an awful confession. These venal ----- involved at all levels in this most recent affair have done that. May their sponsors justifiably abandon ship, their funding run dry, their sump plugs drop out unnoticed - and may those who have lost their bearings now seize solid and pass to the Great Scrapman in the sky... or possibly, to the more appropriate place they truly deserve.

Their actions - and rulings - have indeed demeaned Formula 1 in particular, motor sport in general, and indeed us all... Anyone who cannot recognise that fact is self-evidently the lesser for it.

Yes. Over time, Formula One has sadly morphed from a high-stakes sport into a high-stakes business... I'm hoping that this last example of a certain team-manager of a certain shamed team may somehow turn this around, but I'm not holding my breath...

Their actions - and rulings - have indeed demeaned Formula 1 in particular, motor sport in general, and indeed us all... Anyone who cannot recognise that fact is self-evidently the lesser for it.

DCN

I also find noteworthy the comments made by Damon Hill - one of the last decent people to grace the sport - regarding the state of EffOne. Indeed, I find it increasingly difficult to retain even the last bit of what is left of my enthusiasm for 'the show'.

Some years ago, when Barrichello had the Austrian GP won, only to back off - as ordered - just before the finish line to permit his Ferrari team-mate Schumacher (M) to finish first, my lifelong interest in major-league motor racing was irretrievably holed beneath the waterline.

A number of respected former Champions and former title contenders told me independent of one another that they felt almost soiled by that episode.

"It demeans us all" was the best quote, reflecting the feelings of many.

For me, sadly, Formula 1 has become a far away colony inhabited by many fantastically capable and impressive people, but in many areas plainly capped by utter ****.

This most recent episode sullies all of us who have been entranced by motor sport since we could walk, and talk, and think.

Telling any non-enthusiast today that you are a Formula 1 enthusiast seems akin to an awful confession. These venal ----- involved at all levels in this most recent affair have done that. May their sponsors justifiably abandon ship, their funding run dry, their sump plugs drop out unnoticed - and may those who have lost their bearings now seize solid and pass to the Great Scrapman in the sky... or possibly, to the more appropriate place they truly deserve.

Their actions - and rulings - have indeed demeaned Formula 1 in particular, motor sport in general, and indeed us all... Anyone who cannot recognise that fact is self-evidently the lesser for it.

DCN

Well, perhaps... the strange thing is that when I was sixteen (and still had hopes to become a racedriver, so we are talking about the 80's of last century), and said I liked Formula 1 racing EVERYONE, were it at school, during party's or at birthdays, people gasped... motorracing was dangerous, it was dangerous, it was a fascist sport...It was very politcally incorrect to like any form of motorracing.

Nowadays the only comment I get when I say when I watch F1 is: 'Oh. But that's so boring.'

So I don't think Formula 1 is demeaned in the popular view of the shallow onlooker. On the contrary.

Whereas when Piquet spun himself into the wall he could be pretty sure he would walk away unharmed due to the rigorous side impact test that all current F1 cars have to pass. In spite of what all the papers and the FIA said I doubt that there was any chance of harm coming to any official or spectator.

Piquet, and any other driver who has deliberately instigated a crash, should have JYS haul them by the scruff of the neck round the graves of every driver who ever died in a racing accident, and rattle their skulls against the headstones until they see some sense.

It's kind of a shame that Chapman is known for building fast "unreliable" cars. Not fast, unsafe death-traps.

Only if you include the realisation that ALL cars in that era was unsafe deathtraps. Whatever car Jochen Rindt would have driven in Monza 1970 under the same conditions: he would have been dead. Hell, if you drive into an armco in a modern F1 car without your seatbelts on you are done for.

Piquet, and any other driver who has deliberately instigated a crash, should have JYS haul them by the scruff of the neck round the graves of every driver who ever died in a racing accident, and rattle their skulls against the headstones until they see some sense.

While I can see your point, I think with today's safety standards the Piquet crash didn't cause considerable danger to himself or anyone else, so the fact that 40 years ago a crash like this would have been dangerous doesn't make it dangerous now.

On the Barrichello-MS affair and team orders in general: I don't think it's any worse than to call Fangio's teammates into the pits to hand over their car. At least Barrichello was able to finish one place behind and didn't have to watch the rest of the race from the sidelines like they had to. Mike MacDowel referred to Jack Brabham to me with the words: With whom I "shared" my car at the 1957 French GP. In my view calling in a driver to hand his car over is much more unsporting than ordering a driver to let his teammate through. A case of rose-tinted glassed I think.

I am still not sure. My impression is: Briatore had rehearsed to say something 'shocked' about Nelsons crash. But while he was busy doing the galleryplay, he REALLY got shocked by the way that Piquet had crashed the car. However intentional, it still was a big crash (EDIT: and I think he did put himself and others in danger...)

While I can see your point, I think with today's safety standards the Piquet crash didn't cause considerable danger to himself or anyone else, so the fact that 40 years ago a crash like this would have been dangerous doesn't make it dangerous now.

But it's still very wrong, and that's the whole problem... To me, there's a big difference between shared drives, team-orders and doing something which should be inherently avoided - no matter the "technology"...

But it's still very wrong, and that's the whole problem... To me, there's a big difference between shared drives, team-orders and doing something which should be inherently avoided - no matter the "technology"...

Yes, sure it's wrong, but then Jack Brabham didn't mind running a bit wide to spray dirt into the face of the driver behind him. I'm just saying that the mindset of these people is very different from ours, so much more focused on one single thing, and they do everything to achieve it as they did 70 years ago. Surely deliberately causing a safety car won't win them the fair play prize, but then no real sportsman is interested in the fair play prize, they are interested in winning. I don't want to pick any particular examples because it never makes sense to compare two incidents, but when someone hails John Surtees as the only man to... do they add that "although mainly because Bandini took Graham Hill straight out of the race"? No. I'm just saying that so many incidents like this have happened over the years, but they fade into the distance. It's the result that stays.

Some years ago, when Barrichello had the Austrian GP won, only to back off - as ordered - just before the finish line to permit his Ferrari team-mate Schumacher (M) to finish first, my lifelong interest in major-league motor racing was irretrievably holed beneath the waterline.

A number of respected former Champions and former title contenders told me independent of one another that they felt almost soiled by that episode.

"It demeans us all" was the best quote, reflecting the feelings of many.

DCN

Hang about a minute!

Is that not exactly what Phil Hill was told to do and did at Casablanca in 1958 to allow his Ferrari team Mike Hawthorn to come second in the race and thus win the world championship, by just one point from Moss?

It has always intrigued that even at the time and more particualrly ever since that single point differnce is universally accredited to Moss's actions in Portugal(? - sorry, don't have me books beside me as I post) in having Hawthorn re-instated (most certainly a most sporting gesture on the part of SCM) rather than to Hill backing off to let Hawthorn pass. At least (or so his story goes) Hill went to the trouble of faking ignition problems as he slowed. Without Hill's help, Hawthorn would not have been world champion merely by his own efforts. Why do not folks feel soiled by JMH's title?

Is that not exactly what Phil Hill was told to do and did at Casablanca in 1958 to allow his Ferrari team Mike Hawthorn to come second in the race and thus win the world championship, by just one point from Moss?

It has always intrigued that even at the time and more particualrly ever since that single point differnce is universally accredited to Moss's actions in Portugal(? - sorry, don't have me books beside me as I post) in having Hawthorn re-instated (most certainly a most sporting gesture on the part of SCM) rather than to Hill backing off to let Hawthorn pass. At least (or so his story goes) Hill went to the trouble of faking ignition problems as he slowed. Without Hill's help, Hawthorn would not have been world champion merely by his own efforts. Why do not folks feel soiled by JMH's title?

Or have I got that wrong (too)?

No, because Hawthorn clinched the world title with this teammove while Schumachers season was far from over... there's a big difference in sacrificing a place for your teammate in the interest of the team and out of neccessity than doing it because it was a deal. That's why nobody blamed Reuteman for refusing to let Alan Jones pass him in Brazil 1981, for example. To do it just because 'it was agreed to' is just not right, IMHO.

Only if you include the realisation that ALL cars in that era was unsafe deathtraps. Whatever car Jochen Rindt would have driven in Monza 1970 under the same conditions: he would have been dead. Hell, if you drive into an armco in a modern F1 car without your seatbelts on you are done for.

Isn't it true that only one person was ever killed driving a Ron Taraunac-designed car? And that includes the myriad Brabhams and Ralts sold at almost all levels of competition.

The vast majority of fatalities in auto racing are the result of mechanical failure. If you accept that mechanical failures are avoidable and directly related to the quality of car builds, and not the random smiting of some capricious mechanic-God, then surely it follows that some cars were inherently more unsafe than others? Not wishing to get more involved with the argument than this point. The contention that Colin Chapman was to some extent a callous mass-murderer is ugly, unproductive, and 'demeans us all'.

Yeah, he was pissed to the extreme. But Frank Williams... Patrick Head? Mmm..

Regarding the safety of the Brabhams: yes, a lot of accidents with Lotus cars would not have happened with Brabhams. Rindts and Hills flying excercises in Barcelona would not have happened, for example. And perhaps Rindts brakes would not have failed him in the Parabolica, perhaps Tauranac would never let someone drive a car without a rearwing when it was designed for a wing... but as soon as the accident happened Rindts chances were over. Like I said: even in a modern F1 car - when you crash straight on (and not turn over) while not wearing a seatbelt you will submarine in the cockpit and perish. Ultimately it is the drivers choice to enter a car, and I don't think Chapman ever lied about his cars to his drivers. Rindt knew the Lotus without rearwing was more dangerous, Rindt knew the Lotuses were not as safe as the Brabhams, Ronnie Peterson knew the 78 was not a safe sparecar... etc...

Is that not exactly what Phil Hill was told to do and did at Casablanca in 1958 to allow his Ferrari team Mike Hawthorn to come second in the race and thus win the world championship, by just one point from Moss?

It has always intrigued that even at the time and more particualrly ever since that single point differnce is universally accredited to Moss's actions in Portugal(? - sorry, don't have me books beside me as I post) in having Hawthorn re-instated (most certainly a most sporting gesture on the part of SCM) rather than to Hill backing off to let Hawthorn pass. At least (or so his story goes) Hill went to the trouble of faking ignition problems as he slowed. Without Hill's help, Hawthorn would not have been world champion merely by his own efforts. Why do not folks feel soiled by JMH's title?

Or have I got that wrong (too)?

I always think that Moss lost the championship at Spa when he missed a gear trying to pass Brooks and destroyed his engine. He says that in Portugal he misread the pit signal "HAW, REC" (lap record) as "HAW, REG" (regular) which may be the way he sees the situationit. I would have expected the code for fastest lap to be "FL" not "REC" anyway. As to the Hawthorn reinstatement issue - Moss did what came naturally to him: he wanted to beat Hawthorn "on the road" not through a disqualification.

No, because Hawthorn clinched the world title with this teammove while Schumachers season was far from over... there's a big difference in sacrificing a place for your teammate in the interest of the team and out of neccessity than doing it because it was a deal. That's why nobody blamed Reuteman for refusing to let Alan Jones pass him in Brazil 1981, for example. To do it just because 'it was agreed to' is just not right, IMHO.

I agree, the difference is that it was so early in the season and done so blatantly.

Moss did what came naturally to him: he wanted to beat Hawthorn "on the road" not through a disqualification.

No argument about Moss's code of behaviour, Duncan - and of course he did beat Hawthorn 'on the road', which is exactly my point. The essential similarity between the two Ferrari team moves remains. Each 'unfairly' altered the outcome of what was/ should have been a straight sporting contest. They are not exactly parrallel, I grant, because Hill was in line to win neither the race nor the championship.

I am sure I am not the only follower of the sport at that time who believed then and still believes now that Moss was finally beaten in the 1958 world championship not by any meritorious action of Mike Hawthorn but by the direct intervention of Phil Hill (and I recognise that Moss himself has never blamed Hill for doing so).

Is there any information about when Barri was told that he had to let Schuey win? I assummed at the time that it was a standing instruction, and that rather than merely follow MS, Barrichelo set out to demonstrate very publicly that, were he allowed to, he too could win a Grand Prix .

I always think that Moss lost the championship at Spa when he missed a gear trying to pass Brooks and destroyed his engine. He says that in Portugal he misread the pit signal "HAW, REC" (lap record) as "HAW, REG" (regular) which may be the way he sees the situationit. I would have expected the code for fastest lap to be "FL" not "REC" anyway. As to the Hawthorn reinstatement issue - Moss did what came naturally to him: he wanted to beat Hawthorn "on the road" not through a disqualification.

Forget that for a sec. When Moss finished at Portugal, three cars crossed the line almost together; Hawthorn, Moss, Lewis-Evans. Stuart was a lap down, Hawthorn NEARLY a lap down. Had Moss allowed Lewis-Evans to unlap himself, Hawthorn's spin would have put Vanwalls 1-2.

The problem with Austria was that for ages Barrichello had been telling everyone that he was equal number one, if he were able to beat Schumacher on merit he would be allowed to do so. We were all played for fools. It did however have the benefit of showing everyone without any doubt what the situation was at Ferrari.

However, Austria to my mind was far, far, far less offensive than what Ford did to Ken Miles in 1966, or Lou Moore and Mauri Rose to Bill Holland in 1947. Barrichello "merely" lost a segment in a world championship battle. Miles and Holland lost their chance for racing immortality.

I always understood that Rubens was told to let Schumacher past with about 5 laps to go and they held a conversation over the radio for the remaining laps, then for Rubens to FINALLY let him by on the very last corner. I was working for Bernie at that point and well remember the reaction by the crowd to that manoeuvre, they were NOT pleased. I was actually sickened by it, to be honest.

Some years ago, when Barrichello had the Austrian GP won, only to back off - as ordered - just before the finish line to permit his Ferrari team-mate Schumacher (M) to finish first, my lifelong interest in major-league motor racing was irretrievably holed beneath the waterline.

A number of respected former Champions and former title contenders told me independent of one another that they felt almost soiled by that episode.

"It demeans us all" was the best quote, reflecting the feelings of many.

For me, sadly, Formula 1 has become a far away colony inhabited by many fantastically capable and impressive people, but in many areas plainly capped by utter ****.

This most recent episode sullies all of us who have been entranced by motor sport since we could walk, and talk, and think.

Telling any non-enthusiast today that you are a Formula 1 enthusiast seems akin to an awful confession. These venal ----- involved at all levels in this most recent affair have done that. May their sponsors justifiably abandon ship, their funding run dry, their sump plugs drop out unnoticed - and may those who have lost their bearings now seize solid and pass to the Great Scrapman in the sky... or possibly, to the more appropriate place they truly deserve.

Their actions - and rulings - have indeed demeaned Formula 1 in particular, motor sport in general, and indeed us all... Anyone who cannot recognise that fact is self-evidently the lesser for it.

DCN

For the first part of your post I disagree, as team orders obviously were part of the sport since there were teams. I never understood why this partciular scene caused that kind of scandal, where there have been so many previous examples (not that I am Schumacher fan, but I would blame him rather for so many other unsporting acts than this one).

I agree absoultely that Briatore´s act was massively unsporting, but I think the real point is indeed your last statement. Acts like this have only become possible at all because of so many ridiculous rules. No pace-car (sorry "safety"-car) in Chapman´s days - no chance to do a Briatore, simply as that!

Many may argue, that this is institution is necessary for safety reasons, but I think, the same effect could easily be achieved by other more sporting means (stop the race and restart it with the proper time distances...). I am convinced that the true idea behind the pace-car is to increase the show by bringing the field together again, which is absolutely unfair towards somebody, who has worked himself into a comfortable lead. And if you introduce sportingly unfair rules you must not complain about sportingly unfair behaviour...

I've always read that the right-front brake-shaft broke which left him with only the left-front brake at just the wrong moment - which caused his car to veer left into the barrier...

People have said here in this thread that Chapman didn't built death traps and so on.Well, not on purpose or with the intention.

But I think however that in his obsession to save weight he went a step too far with using those hollow drive shafts at the front and that was too much of a risk he should not have taken to begin with.

As for the talks about Schumacher winning at Austria and Barrichello not permitted to win and what Chapman may have thought about that....Had he been able to speak out to begin with, he better had to shut up.Ask Mario Andretti and any other still living Team Lotus team member who was supposed to win races in 1978 if it was between Mario himself and Ronnie Peterson to decide and fight for the wins. The so often loathed #1 driver policy by Ferrari (MS) and Renault (FA) was used in 1978 already by Team Lotus.....

Even the policy to hire a lap dog driver who was no danger to the nominated #1 driver is nothing new. That went back to the 60's when Chapman had Jim Clark and thus needed no other driver to waste time and efforts upon. Maybe it went even further back in time (Carracciola at Mercedes being Neubauer's darling) but there is a case of Lotus under Chapman doing the same before the uproars about this policy being used in the past two decades....

I regret to say but the fact remains that: Between all the many lovely stories about Lotus (There certainly are), there are a few that smell not so nice at all.....

Many may argue, that this is institution is necessary for safety reasons, but I think, the same effect could easily be achieved by other more sporting means (stop the race and restart it with the proper time distances...). I am convinced that the true idea behind the pace-car is to increase the show by bringing the field together again, which is absolutely unfair towards somebody, who has worked himself into a comfortable lead. And if you introduce sportingly unfair rules you must not complain about sportingly unfair behaviour...

While I completely agree with your point, I think there is another very significant aspect of this, and that's the TV time. It would take a lot of time to stop and restart a race and they could well run out of the usually allocated two hours, that's why it's necessary not to prolong a race if possible.

Ask Mario Andretti and any other still living Team Lotus team member who was supposed to win races in 1978 if it was between Mario himself and Ronnie Peterson to decide and fight for the wins. The so often loathed #1 driver policy by Ferrari (MS) and Renault (FA) was used in 1978 already by Team Lotus.....

With respect to Peterson, how many times in 1978 was he ahead of Andretti? There are lies, damned lies and statistics, but even so, in 1978:

-Andretti beat Peterson in qualifying 8-3; -Mario led 459 laps, Ronnie 49 - 37 of which came at the same race, where Andretti was out at the start;-Ronnie only ran seconnd for 211 laps, so he was not always right behind Mario;-Mario had 5 wins, Ronnie 2;-1 of Ronnie's wins came by taking the lead on the last lap, long after Mario had retired from the lead, and the other came when Mario crashed on the first lap.

Ronnie scored three poles, in two of those races Mario was ahead of Ronnie by the fifth lap, on the other Mario retired at the start.

Lotus' 1-2s came at Belgium, where Mario led all the way and Peterson only clinched second with four laps to go, at Spain, where Mario led almost from the start and Peterson only took second at three-quarter distance, at France, where Mario led all the way and Peterson took second on lap ten, and the Netherlands, which was the one race where Peterson would probably have won had they been racing - but only because Andretti had a broken exhaust after leading from the start.

Andretti doubtless was favoured with things like spare cars. But there was a reason. He was better than Peterson.

With respect to Peterson, how many times in 1978 was he ahead of Andretti? There are lies, damned lies and statistics, but even so, in 1978:

-Andretti beat Peterson in qualifying 8-3; -Mario led 459 laps, Ronnie 49 - 37 of which came at the same race, where Andretti was out at the start;-Ronnie only ran seconnd for 211 laps, so he was not always right behind Mario;-Mario had 5 wins, Ronnie 2;-1 of Ronnie's wins came by taking the lead on the last lap, long after Mario had retired from the lead, and the other came when Mario crashed on the first lap.

Ronnie scored three poles, in two of those races Mario was ahead of Ronnie by the fifth lap, on the other Mario retired at the start.

Lotus' 1-2s came at Belgium, where Mario led all the way and Peterson only clinched second with four laps to go, at Spain, where Mario led almost from the start and Peterson only took second at three-quarter distance, at France, where Mario led all the way and Peterson took second on lap ten, and the Netherlands, which was the one race where Peterson would probably have won had they been racing - but only because Andretti had a broken exhaust after leading from the start.

Andretti doubtless was favoured with things like spare cars. But there was a reason. He was better than Peterson.

I'm certainly not under suspicion to be an MS apologists, yet I have to say that many of your above arguments would also apply to his years alongside Irvine and Barrichello.

And further, despite Mario Andretti being my first hero in racing at the age of 13, there can be no mistake that Peterson wasn't allowed to contest his WDC bid in 1978. Peterson came back to Lotus (some would even say he was saved by Chapman) under the clear understanding that Andretti would be the teams clear no.1, mainly because he had helped develope the 78/79 cars to the world beaters they became and he wasn't to be denied his just reward.

The true difference to later team orders was that both men didn't make a fuss about it or entertained any illusions re: their respective status in the team. Still the basic fact was that Team Lotus employed a distinct no.1 policy in 1978, very much like Ferrari 1996-2006.

I certainly agree that Andretti was overall the better driver, all things considered, especially the technical aspects. But had they been allowed to race freely, Petersons speed might have given Andretti more than a little headache on occassion, just like it happened with the Fittpaldi/Peterson combo in 1973.